In case you didn't have enough reasons to vote for Sen. Stephen Johnson for Supreme Court, here is incumbent Susan Owens speaking yesterday on KUOW Weekday [audio clip from 17:12]:
Host Steve Scher : Justice Owens, what's your response to the Court's ruling in the Monorail, critics are saying you overstepped the meaning of eminent domain?Substitue "home" for "parking lot" and "Your Community" for "downtown Seattle" and I think it's clear why Owens is not a person who can be trusted to defend citizens from eminent domain abuse. (Monorail officials had acknowledged that they were seeking to take more land than they actually needed for the project. And the Court ruled that the Monorail could take more land than it needed).
Owens: For one thing, I don't think the voters are that concerned about a parking lot down in downtown Seattle, or, the statewide voters are that concerned
Also during the program, Owens expressed her support for gay marriage. [9:15 into the audio] DOMA is up for reconsideration by the state high court, and it is a violation of Section 7(B)(1)(c) of the state Code of Judicial Conduct for a judicial candidate to make "statements that appear to commit the candidate regarding cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court". Unlike the incumbent, Stephen Johnson and the other candidates knew enough to refrain from expressing their personal views on DOMA.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 16, 2006 11:35 AM | Email ThisVote for Stephen Johnson. This woman is scary.
Posted by: Misty on September 16, 2006 11:45 AMProperty rights are a key factor in the Revolution, so much so that Jefferson based his draft on Locke's phrasing:
Life, Liberty and Property.This encompassed not only real property (land, things) but ones self, and well being.
Having already signed one of the several opinions on the marriage case, Justice Owens could hardly be required to play pretend regarding her published position.
Question: Would the code of conduct prevent Owens from reading her opinion out loud in public once the motion for reconsideration was filed? Would she be in violation had she pointed people to the court's Web site to read the opinion? What if she paraphrased the opinion -- which is closest to what she actually did on the air?
It seems to me that Justices who voted in the majority are far more realistically constrained by the code than is Owens, who isn't being asked to change her position pursuant to the motion.
Posted by: jwilk on September 16, 2006 01:38 PMOf course, that's all the more reason to vote for Johnson.
Posted by: TB on September 16, 2006 02:53 PMRidiculous!
Posted by: sgmmac on September 16, 2006 04:03 PMthis is the same kind of "innocent" thinking that shoots 30-30's into the air at new year's eve and speeds along at night on a lake on a boat with no lights;
i can hear it now: "...ohhh...what HAPPENED--I'm SHOCKED!...i NEVER intended to do any HARM!" yea-thanks--
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 16, 2006 04:06 PMThose Justices who ruled in the minority are just as clearly bound to honor the CJC as those in the majority. I am shcocked anyone could construct a scenario where that isn't the case.
The key to reconsidering any argument is to RECONSIDER it. This burden is not just for the Justices in the majority. Jwilk may hope that a justice who signed the majority opinion will change their mind, but that isn't the only possible outcome.
This is the sort of manipulative self serving outcomes based argument that makes Judicial Activism possible.
Posted by: Alex Hays on September 16, 2006 05:43 PMI asked a few questions in my post (#4) seeking to highlight the odd effect of requiring Justice Owens to hew strictly to the CJC. To repeat:
"Would the code of conduct prevent Owens from reading her opinion out loud in public once the motion for reconsideration was filed? Would she be in violation had she pointed people to the court's Web site to read the opinion? What if she paraphrased the opinion -- which is closest to what she actually did on the air?"
I'm not just "constructing a scenario" here. Should Justice Ownes be required to pretend that she hasn't filed an opinion in the case?
Other candidates, including Justice Chambers and Alexander, have discussed the decsion. Which is the scenario you describe above.
In my opinion (and perhaps this is why we disagree here) Owens made a rather different statement, which appeared to declare how she intends to rule on the motion for reconsideration. I responded so strongly to your comments because you seem to argue that a seperate, lower, standard exists for those in the minority in a case being reconsidered. You seemed to accept her willingness to make such a pledge as ethical, only because she was in the minority.
It may seem unfair to differentiate between a comment that *reflects* on the Andersen and one that is *forward looking* but it is essential to preserving our impartial judiciary. Noting why you did something is different from pledging what you plan to do.
In my view Owens is campaiging based on her pledge to vote down DOMA. This is precisely what the CJC intends to prevent.
Thanks for responding.
Posted by: Alex Hays on September 16, 2006 06:24 PMIf her "support" of it is contradictory to the law, then it shows a bias in her voicing "support" for it.
She is supposed to interpret the laws in the context of the constitution regardless of her personal feelings. Saying she "supports" gay marriage is far different than ruling for it because the law allows it.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 16, 2006 08:23 PM"For one thing, I don't think the voters are that concerned about a parking lot down in downtown Seattle" unless it was YOUR parking lot. It would be no different if they took your home or business it was wrong then and is still wrong. The problem is their idea of "public good" may not match your own, or those of our Founding Fathers. When we will stop this madness and what will it take to stop it... maybe exercising our 2nd amendment rights is all that is left.. I sure hope not but it looks like it could be inevitable.
Posted by: Variable on September 18, 2006 01:46 PM